NBC acknowledges reality with 52-week season

Tim Goodman Television Mark Morford Notes & Errata is on E5.

Published
4:00 am PST, Wednesday, February 20, 2008

No broadcaster or cable channel has yet to definitively answer the question of what television viewers really want - other than compellingly great series all the time without paying for them and, if possible, without commercials.

What do viewers want? It's a simple question, bound to get myriad responses. But it's suddenly relevant now that NBC announced Tuesday its plans to present a 52-week television season. The full details of the plan are supposed to be revealed in April (but you can find a few guesses below as to what it might entail). The Peacock has been itching to be a game-changer, and this, if it works, would alter the TV landscape. Other networks are also likely to change the way they do business, from how they develop shows to when they air them. Taken together, this would signal your first post-strike revolution. Of course, Fox once decided it would implement a year-round schedule, and all that really happened was its executive wing was cleaned out and told to go home.

But there's merit to a 52-week schedule. This 40-plus-year-old philosophy of starting in September (it's fall, you're inside, you're ready to watch TV) and ending in May (it's sunny outside and you'll be leaving on vacation soon) may have seemed logical, but it wasn't, and it was made less so as cable began to program the summer months and steal away viewers.

There are 112,800,000 households using television in this country. And the people watching have made it clear that they watch 365 days a year. They are not following broadcast television's archaic schedule. For 52 weeks a year, they're looking for something to watch.

Congratulations, then, to NBC for being the first to step up and say it will change to reflect what's been going on in this country for decades. A full year of programming - and one would assume it's fresh programming. Excellent idea. But since NBC is notorious for counting pennies - and shining them in the sweaty grip of its greedy palm - we can assume that programming more is not going to end up costing more. So there will be changes. The guess here is that NBC didn't send you a questionnaire about what you'd like those changes to be, so what you want is going to take a backseat to what you'll get.

In all likelihood, there will be fewer episodes of a series, which might shift money to create more series to fill out the year. Some of that programming may be imported from Canada and England and offered up to you as is (not such a bad thing and probably long overdue). But you can also probably expect more cheap reality programming. You'll probably get more reruns, too.

That's probably not something you had on your list of wants. But it's hard to see how the math is going to work without repeats. As it stands now, a television season can run 36 weeks. If your favorite series - in a non-strike-shortened season, of course - makes the usual 22 episodes, that leaves 14 weeks of filler. Even assuming that NBC has some brilliant plans to make those 14 weeks fresh, that would be playing with the old rules. The new rules stretch 36 weeks to 52, and that's a gaping mouth to feed, is it not?

But let's stay positive here and think about the good that could come to you, the home viewer.

Based on the Nielsen ratings, one would have to assume that you or your friends are helping fuel the success of certain reality shows. No need to point fingers or go into denial. Somebody's watching people lose weight, make a deal, find a partner or witness C-list celebrities dancing. So there will be more "unscripted" fare on the menu. But enjoying television is all about savvy decision-making, so what if, across the dial, you had the chance to watch new series that lasted only nine episodes? Never mind that the series could be canceled after four or that it could be picked up for even more. Just focus on the idea of nine, without guarantees. Is that enough? Do you need 13 or 22? What about the British model - six episodes? It's the small-plates approach to visual consumption. It certainly sounds intriguing. Adjust the portions, lengthen the hours of operation.

But we're the super-size nation and we like more, more, more. In some ways, six episodes or nine episodes sounds palatable only if the show isn't very good. Right? It leaves the schedule more quickly so you get more choices. Next! But if the episodes are great, you'll want 22 and be annoyed that you can't get more until almost a year later.

That's certainly one of the risks in a 52-week season. But the option of short runs is intriguing to the networks, because they don't have to commit themselves to the industry-standard 13 or 22 episodes, which is an enormous outlay of cash for no guarantee that you'll stay loyal for that long.

Shorter might not only be better, but it might also be the new normal sooner than you think.

If other networks join with NBC in a year-round schedule - and all of them agree that the current system is broken - it could indeed be change for the better. The marketplace is well stocked now with channels willing to pay for scripted fare - whether it be FX or AMC or TNT or USA. We've been witnessing a leveling of the playing field for years now - the broadcast networks have had less than 50 percent market share for a long time - and viewers have adopted this paradigm shift far faster than the Big Four. One of the little-discussed elements of the WGA strike, in fact, is how viewers didn't seem very put out by it. They found fresh programming, because the so-called 500-channel universe is immense. There's content everywhere.